The Brookhaven leader., 1887-06-30

signed. Al any rate. we will put
the question tc Gen. Catchirgs d.
rect and ask him il Hamilton was
not the friend in jackson" whom he
authorized to write certificate for
him covering the facts" y; and
we challenge him, it he can, To deny
IT., and offer him all the space in
these columns he desires to do
so.
Driven to confess that he did not
write the certificate which went to
the world as his own;-that "some
Of it's language is undoubledly
open to your our criticism" and
that chad noticed it at the time |
would most certainly not have used
it or suffered it to be used, as the
case NAV be-" Gen Catchings has
placed himselrin a most humiiatlng
attitude before the public for man
of his position, and we would be
disposed to forego all further com.
ment if, after doing this, he did not
try TO defend this certificate by
SAYING that submit that SO
much of the language OF the certifi
cate as seems TO make me assert the
rent for 1884 had been paid, is de
plived of such significance when
taken along with the balance OF
it,"
Now let us see if this is true,
taken in connection with other facts
and circumstances, and to get the
matter fairly before the reader we
reproduce the certificate itself:
VlCKsBURG, Miss July 90, 1885.
This is TO certify that Immediate
" after the passage Of the Act of
1884, Governor Lowry, in writing,
called my attention to the same,
and / so notified The Lessees of the
Pcnitentary, who made full settle
ment of all sums due, under the law
and their contract up to the lst of
Dcccm her, 1884. No suit was insti-
tuted, as it was not necessary.
T. C. CATcHINGs,
Late Attorney General.
AS will be seen, it is not intima-
ted in this certificate that the rent
for which settlement was made was
for 1883 only, and the plain infer
cnce from the language is, that the
settlement was had promptly after
the notification instead Of the follow
ing December, which was the fact.
In other words, the language plain
~ implies that settlement was not
only had for all that was due at
the time OF the Governors notice
to the Acknowledgement, but that
then or at subsequent time, settle
mcnt was made for 1881 also.
And when we bear in mind that Mr.
Catchings did not vacate the Attor-
ney Generals office until February,
1885, (soine time after the rent for
1884 fell due) it will he easily seen
how false and misleading was this
semi-oflicial certificate, published in
the July following, declaring that
the Lessees had settled all Of heir
Indebtedness mp to December lSt,
1881!
Again, Gen. Catchings says that
he did not know that his certificate
was desired for publication, but that
he did know that it was wanted
in contradiction of Mr.. Fairman's
statement that the rent for 1888 had
not been paid" When it is remem-
berel that Fairman also charged
that the rent for 1884 had not been
paid, and it is again remembered
that this certificate stated all sums
due up to the Ist Of December, 1884,
hal been settled, if deception was
not designed, we ask again, why
was the certificate SO adroitly word
ed and no specific mention made in
it or any of the others OF the year
1888? Why did it not say settle
ment had been made for all rent due
up to Jan. l, 1854, instead of Dec
/, 1884? Why? Was it not to con
ccal the fact that nothing had been
paid for that year, and that Lowry,
the candidate of the Ring at that
time, duly 20, 1885, had not caus-
ed suit to be brought for the rent OF
1884, as the law required !?
We were fully aware that Gen.
Catchings had nothing to do with
approving the Lessees' accounts
against the State or making con-
tracts, ETC., and when we said he
was specially charged with looking
after the financial interests of the